Adolescents’ values of children and their future plans to have children: A multi-level perspective

(1)

source: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.146982 | downloaded: 1.2.2022

Adolescents’ values of children and their intentions to have children:

A multi-level perspective

Boris Mayer & Gisela Trommsdorff University of Konstanz

Symposium Value of Children and Intergenerational Relations in Different Culturesat the 19th International Congress of IACCP

(2)

• Reasons for having children

• Needs children fulfill for their parents

(Hoffman & Hoffman, 1973)

• Emotional, social, and economic benefits and costs from having children

(e.g., Arnold et al., 1975)

Value of Children (VOC)

(3)

• Economic needs can be best fulfilled by many children

→ Economic VOC positively related to fertility

• Emotional needs can be fulfilled by 1 or 2 children as good as by many children

→ Emotional VOC negatively related to fertility

Relations Between VOC and Fertility (1)

(4)

• Mostly confirmed at the group-level

(e.g., Trommsdorff, in press; Kagitcibasi & Ataca, 2005)

• Partly confirmed at the individual level

(e.g., Kagitcibasi, 1982; Nauck, 2007)

• Multilevel models needed to account for differential effects on the cultural and on the individual level

Relations Between VOC and Fertility (2)

(5)

Cultures selected to represent

a) Geographic and Cultural Regions of the World:

Europe, Asia, Africa (excl. Americas & Middle East) b) Range of economic development: per capita

GNP from 3.120 $ (India) to 35.660 $ (Switzerland)

Method: Cultures in the Study

(6)

• Population = 61m

• GNI per capita = 32,240 $

• Total Fertility Rate = 2.0

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Colette Sabatier, Université Victor Segalen, Bordeaux

France

(7)

• GNP per capita = 32,680 $

• Principal Investigators:

Prof. Dr. Gisela Trommsdorff University of Konstanz

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Nauck

Technische Universität Chemnitz

Germany

(8)

• Population = 8m

• Data provided by

Dipl.-Psych. Karen Fux, University of Konstanz

Switzerland

(9)

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Karl Peltzer

Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town

South Africa

(10)

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Cigdem Kagitçibasi Koc University, Istanbul Dr. Bilge Ataca

Bogazici University, Istanbul

Turkey

(11)

• Population = 7m

• Teamleader

Dr. Asher Ben-Arieh, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Dr. Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Israel

(12)

• Population = 1.12bn

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Ramesh Mishra, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi

India

(13)

• Teamleader

Dr. Lieke Wisnubrata,

Padjadjaran University, Bandung

Drs. Peter R. Nelwan

Padjadjaran University, Bandung

Indonesia

(14)

• Population = 1.31bn

• GNI per capita = 4,660 $

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Gang Zheng, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Prof. Shaohua Shi,

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing

People‘s Republic of China

(15)

• Teamleader

Prof. Dr. Uichol Kim,

Inha University, Inchon Prof. Dr. Young-Shin Park, Inha University, Inchon

Republic of Korea

(16)

• Data provided by

Chiaki Yamada, MA, Université Victor Segalen, Bordeaux, France

Japan

(17)

Cultures Males Females All M Age (SD)

Germany 137 174 311 15.7 (1.1)

France 90 110 200 15.7 (1.2)

Switzerland 55 76 131 19.8 (1.9)

Israel 69 119 188 15.8 (1.4)

Turkey 144 162 306 14.7 (1.1)

South Africa 122 195 317 15.0 (1.2)

India 148 152 300 16.0 (1.5)

Indonesia 135 165 300 15.3 (1.0)

China 129 177 306 13.8 (1.1)

Korea 143 252 395 15.3 (1.5)

Japan 77 130 207 16.5 (0.8)

Total 1249 1712 2961 15.5 (1.7)

Adolescents from 11 Cultures

(18)

Mean Differences: Emotional VOC

ANOVA F Eta²

Culture 21.84** .07

Gender 3.71+ .00

C x G 1.61+ .01

(19)

Mean Differences: Traditional VOC

Culture 198.12** .41 Gender 39.86** .01

C x G 2.43** .01

(20)

Mean Differences: Number of Children (Intendend Fertility)

Culture 59.48** .21

Gender 1.67 .00

C x G 1.49 .01

(21)

Hierarchic Linear Modeling (HLM)

Individual- Level VOC

Intended Fertility

Culture- Level VOC

Traditional -.02

N = 11

N = 2332

Emotional .30**

(22)

Discussion: Mean Differences

• Emotional VOC high in all cultures → universal?

• Traditional VOC declines with modernization

• Intended Fertility

– Extreme cases (Israel & China) due to political rather than cultural and structural reasons?

– French adolescents rather pro-natalistic – Trend to having 2 children

(23)

Discussion: Multi-Level-Analysis

• Individual-Level-Effects

– Positive (instead of negative) effect of Emotional VOC on Intended Fertility in modern(izing) cultures

– Traditional VOC and Intended Fertility unrelated

• Culture-Level-Effects

– Positive effect of Traditonal VOC on Intended Fertility – Negative effect of Emotional VOC on Intended Fertility – Traditionality weakens positive (individual-level) effect of

Emotional VOC

(24)

Conclusions

• Multi-level analyses needed to account for theore- tically meaningful differential effects across levels

• Emotional VOC positive predictor of fertility in most cultures

• Traditional conceptualization of the VOC-Fertility relation valid mostly for culture-level analysis

• Limitation: Results refer to adolescents only

(25)

Thank you!

(26)

References

• Arnold, F., Bulatao, R. A., Buripakdi, C., Chung, B. J., Fawcett, J. T., Iritani, T., et al.

(1975). The value of children. A cross-national study (Vol. 1). Honolulu: East-West Population Institute.

• Hoffmann, L. W., & Hoffmann, M. L. (1973). The value of children to parents. In J. T.

Fawcett (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on population (pp. 19-77). New York Basic Books.

• Kagitcibasi, C. (1982). The changing value of children in Turkey. Honolulu, HI: East- West Center.

• Kagitcibasi, C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 317-337.

• Nauck, B. (2007). Value of children and the framing of fertility: Results from a cross- cultural comparative survey in 10 societies. European Sociological Review, 23, 615-629.

• Trommsdorff, G. (in press). A social change and a human development perspective on the value of children. In A. Aksu-Koc & S. Bekman (Eds.), Perspectives on human

development, family and culture. Essays in honor of Cigdem Kagitcibasi. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

(27)

Tucker‘s Phi Cronbach‘s α

EMO TRAD EMO TRAD

Germany .97 .97 .81 .80

Turkey .99 .99 .84 .86

Israel .75 .61 .76 .68

Korea .97 .98 .83 .78

China .98 .98 .89 .82

Indonesia .95 .96 .79 .76

France .96 .94 .75 .77

India .96 .97 .84 .84

Japan .98 .99 .89 .81

South Africa .84 .73 .88 .77 Switzerland .98 .96 .78 .95

Pooled Solution EMO TRAD

01 Child helps around the house. .15 .61 02 Makes family more important. .50 .32 03 Increases responsibility, develop .61 .21 04 It is a joy to have a small baby .73 .14 05 Fun to have young children around .76 .10 06 Pleasure watching children grow. .78 .12 07 Feeling of love parent and child .75 .03 08 Standing/reputation among your kin .30 .58 09 Less likely to be lonely in old age .34 .49 10 Raising helps learn about life/self .62 .21 11 Older relatives feel more children .03 .62 12 life will be continued through .38 .46 13 Sure enough children will survive .07 .59 14 To carry on the family name .13 .68 15 To help your family economically .07 .72 16 Have someone to love and care for .63 .18 17 A duty according to your belief .15 .56 18 Children can help when you're old .20 .62

VOC – Structural Equivalence and Reliabilities

(28)

Culture Predictors Beta Japan Emotional VOC .52**

Traditional VOC -.01 Germany Emotional VOC .46**

Traditional VOC -.05 Switzerland Emotional VOC .37**

Traditional VOC .12 Korea Emotional VOC .33**

Traditional VOC .02 China Emotional VOC .31**

Traditional VOC .16+

France Emotional VOC .20*

Traditional VOC -.05

Culture Predictors Beta

Turkey Emotional VOC .16*

Traditional VOC -.04 Indonesia Emotional VOC .16*

Traditional VOC -.09

Israel Emotional VOC .06

Traditional VOC -.05 South Africa Emotional VOC .04

Traditional VOC .07 India Emotional VOC -.14+

Traditional VOC .30**

Linear Regression Analysis

Emotional VOC + Traditional VOC → Intended Fertility

(29)

Multi-Level-Analysis (incl. Random Effects)

n = 2342 Intercept Slope

Emot. VOC

Slope Trad. VOC

Ind. Level B df B df B df

Model 1 No. Children 2.11 10 .29** .00 10

Cult. Level B df B B df

Model 2 Effect Emot. VOC -1.16 8 Effect Trad . VOC -.02 8

Model 3 Effect Emot. VOC -.91 8 .42 8 -.31 8

Effect Trad . VOC .18 8 -.46** 8 .14 8

(30)

Multi-Level-Analysis (Fixed Effects only)

n = 2332 Intercept Slope

Emot. VOC

Slope Trad. VOC

Ind. Level B df B df B df

Model 1 No. Children 2.09 2329 .30** -.02 2339

Cult. Level B df B B df

Model 2 Effect Emot. VOC -.93** 2327 Effect Trad . VOC .30** 2327

Model 3 Effect Emot. VOC -.93** 2323 .42 2333 -.34 2323 Effect Trad . VOC .30** 2323 -.48** 2333 .14 2323